Citation Nr: 21004396 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 19-10 071 DATE: January 27, 2021 REMANDED The application to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, to include as secondary to a service-connected disease or injury, is remanded. THE VETERAN’S CONTENTIONS The Veteran seeks to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, to include as secondary to a service-connected disease or injury. See August 2019 application for disability compensation and related compensation benefits; October 2018 notice of disagreement. He stated that the claims file is missing treatment records. See April 2019 VA Form 9. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1984 to June 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that declined to reopen a July 2015 rating decision denying the claim for service connection. In September 2019, the Board denied the Veteran’s application to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, to include as secondary to a service a service-connected disease or injury. The Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Secretary and the Veteran moved the Court to vacate and remand the Board’s September 2019 decision. The Court granted the JMR in August 2020. In the August 2020 JMR, the parties determined that the Board erred by failing to fulfill its duty to assist because the Board did not attempt to obtain additional treatment records from Dr. W.D.W. Specifically, the claims file does not include March 2017 private treatment records from Dr. W.D.W. and there is no indication that these records were sought. A remand is warranted to obtain these records in compliance with the duty to assist. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); see also Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 414, 425 (2006) (holding that the duty to ensure compliance with the Court’s order extends to the terms of the agreement struck by the parties that forms the basis of the joint motion to remand); cf. McBurney v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2009) (Board has a duty on remand to ensure compliance with the favorable terms stated in the [JMR] or explain why the terms will not be fulfilled.). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Take appropriate measures to obtain copies of any outstanding records of pertinent VA or private medical treatment identified by the Veteran, to specifically include March 2017 private treatment records from Dr. W.D.W. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Samuelson, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.